Search the Community

When I first started this sub-forum, my biggest concern was that people would use it as a platform to engage in religious debate. Thankfully that's never happened. However, what I failed to foresee was the same dynamic manifesting in a more subtle form: people engaging in nondual debate. This is even more regrettable, because it goes directly against what nonduality is about and such folks should know better. There has been a recent trend of people stirring up nonduality debate or embarking on "discrediting" campaigns. It's this toxic tendency to criticize and nitpick nondual teachings because they happen to differ from how you think nonduality ought to be done or taught. As if there is one or two paths that everyone should take, and all others are delusional. This is a classic trap. Traditionally, most spiritual paths -- as part of their marketing strategy -- highlight their upsides while conveniently never mentioning their own downsides. Then they criticize all the other paths by only highlighting their downsides while never mentioning their upsides. This creates a false apples-and-oranges comparison. It's functional purpose is to recruit new adherents. It's basically a dishonest advertising campaign. The problem with this approach is that it breeds intolerance and sectarianism. It creates in-fighting and distraction rather than contributing positively to the discussion. It's intellectually uncharitable and ultimately makes the entire field of spirituality/nonduality look hypocritical to outsiders. If you are so nondual, or so self-realized, why are you wasting so much of your time fighting others? This is such a rookie mistake. The reality is that nonduality is a difficult thing to teach, no matter by what method. Traps are numerous NO MATTER WHICH PATH YOU TAKE. There is no such thing as the perfect path. There is no such thing as a path with no downsides or traps or potential for delusion. Any path you take can be misused. Any teaching you hear can be misused. Any teaching can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Any teaching can be nitpicked and criticized into ill-repute if one so desires. You can easily write a massive diatribe about every single spiritual teacher and spiritual path ever devised by man. And you would be half-right. But all of this is just an ideology game. It's a fundamental failure to understand the other person. It's also rather annoying to moderate and creates idle controversy where none really exists. Not only does it turn good people against each other, it's false and ignorant. Just because you've had a rude awakening -- just because you realized that reality is illusory -- doesn't mean you get to come on here and trash the value of conceptual work, or traditional self-help, or other nondual methods. Just because one method didn't resonant with you, doesn't mean you get to crap all over other people's methods. Again, this is such a rookie mistake we shouldn't even be having this discussion. The work that we're doing here is very nuanced. It's very easy to misunderstand. It's very easy to demonize. It's very easy to abuse by its nature. All advanced work is this way. And our work here goes WAY beyond enlightenment. I am counting on you to be a nuanced and understanding student. If you disagree with this philosophy and think that all there is worth doing in life is enlightenment, that's your opinion -- and you're entitled to have it -- but you have no business being here. Go spend your time doing something productive that you believe in, rather than debating, "debunking", and criticizing -- with flagrant disregard for intellectual charity -- the hard work of others. Anyone engaging in nondual debate like: "Method X is all bullshit. It's delusional. Teacher Y doesn't know what the hell enlightenment is. Just follow the method that worked for me." will be banned. There is nothing nondual about such behavior. It's juvenile and driven by a lack of understanding of the deeper aspects of this work. The very act of making such posts is already evidence of one's low level of development. Highly conscious people do NOT behave in this way. Here's a very simple rule of thumb: you will NEVER see highly-conscious and self-realized masters debating, criticizing, nitpicking, or engaging in "debunking" campaigns. Because all of that is egoic, dualistic, ideological nonsense. If they disagree with a teaching, they simply avoid it. They don't start a crusade to fight against it. They understand that different people resonant with different paths and teachings. They understand that everyone needs to find their own path. Remember that guiding people to nonduality is an inherently challenging thing. It's one of the most challenging teaching scenarios. If you ever get the opportunity to teach hundreds or thousands of people about enlightenment, you'll gain a new appreciation for how many of them will deeply misunderstand you and use your well-intentioned teaching for evil. Have respect and compassion for that. When assessing the value of a teaching, observe the principle of intellectual charity, and seek to understand the communication rather than how best to discredit it. Discrediting is easy, understanding is difficult. Division is easy, integration is difficult. Hostility is easy, compassion is difficult. To be a part of this community, you certainly don't need to agree with me on everything. I've always encouraged you to think for yourself and never follow blindly. But you do need to agree with some of my core values like: intellectual honesty, tolerance, compassion, holism, and openmindedness. You must show a basic level of tolerance for diversity and you also need to adhere to the principle of intellectual charity when discussing the pros and cons of various nondual paths. If you don't agree with such principles, that's fine, you just have no business posting on this forum. Please help me keep this community in line with this high standard of discourse, so it doesn't devolve into the kind of low-consciousness finger-pointing that we see all across the web. And none of this should be taken to mean: "So Leo is always right?" No! Leo is just a guy on the web who shares ideas with you. Be very intelligent in how you understand and apply these nuanced and tricky ideas. And none of this should be taken to mean: "Leo is saying that all teachings are identical and equally valid." No! That's obviously not the case. Some teachings are downright absurd. Use of good discernment is ALWAYS necessary. But even if a teaching is absurd, you're still not entitled to troll it or crusade against it. Your actions always speak louder than your words. If you choose to engage in debate or crusading, that shows us exactly what your level of development is, no matter how many enlightenments you may think you've had.

Indeed! My understanding is that there is no difference between the substratum and appearances. They are one. That's nonduality for me. The ego exists relative to ego consciousness. No self is true relative to enlightenment consciousness. No self is false relative to ego consciousness. Based on my understanding, when someone is in ego consciousness, then Brahman or God literally doesn't exist (relative to that state). That's what it means that Truth is what is, that every state is Absolute. Suffering is not inherent to the ego. The ego is perfectly happy if it gets everything it wants. Suffering only happens if the ego doesn't get what it wants. Which happens as a result of Infinity's/God's unbiased nature. In my opinion, it's not the ego's but God's 'fault' that suffering exists. If there were only a biased God (biased towards happiness). Then only happiness would exist and all egos were happy. That means biasedness can create only happiness without suffering. But an unbiased God inevitably has to create biased egos who don't experience what they want and thus suffer. Suffering is therefore a inevitable consequence of God's unbiased nature, imo. The more unbiased you are, the more you perpetuate suffering. Yes, you only know the present state. That means I disagree with Advaita Vedanta then. In my opinion "pure" consciousness as in absolutely formless doesn't exist. There is always some form. Therefore there is no difference between formful and formless, because it's just gradiations. Or more accurately, complete formlessness doesn't exist. It's all formfullness, and it has different gradiations. And consciousness/existence is this formfulness. As long as there is consciousness there is form. Because consciousness is form. Existence = form = consciousness Complete formlessness would be unconsciousness and nonexistence, therefore it doesn't exist.

@Shambhu Seems like we are just having different opinions. I don't see enlightenment or Brahman consciousness as more funtamental or real than ego consciousness. Non-existence non-exists. Existence exists. Everything that can exist exists. Existence is consciousness. So a pure formless state of consciousness or Brahman consciousness or any such high states, are just as much a natural consequence of Infinity/existence as an ego state is. Because existence is consciousness. And consciousness includes every possible state, the formless Brahman just as much as the formful ego state. Relative to Brahman, the ego state is illusory. Relative to the ego state Brahman is illusory. Reality is Absolutely relative. Relative to Brahman consciousness, the ego is a hallucination. Relative to ego consciousness, Brahman is a hallucination. All of these above statements are equally true. When you come full circle, enlightenment is not more special than ego consciousness. Rather than saying form appered out of formlessness you could just as well say that formlessness appeared out of form. None of these two is more fundamental. Form did not appear out of formlessness, it is just here, as a consequence of Existence/Consciousness, just like the Brahman state. Existence is not one certain state, rather it is ANY state, or the sum of all possible states. My concept of Absolute Infinity contains infinitely many finite and infinite parts/consciousnesses. Because I conceptualize Absolute Infinity as Existence. And Existence is unlimited, therefore it contains all possible things/consciousnesses/bubbles. The consequence of that is that there have to be infinitely many finite and infinite bubbles/consciousnesses. States don't appear to something prior to themselves. States appear to themselves. Indeed. Relative to the current state, the previous state doesn't exist anymore. A state is fundamentally just consciousness. But from a more dualistic perspective, a state is made of consciousness and appearances within consciousness. But nonduality collapses that distinction.

Relative to a high state of consciousness, there are no differences between anyhing. For example there is no difference between physical (A) and non-physical (B) . Relative to a high state of consciousness, they are one. People say that seperate consciousnesses contradict Oneness. Well, if the difference between one consciousness bubble and another consciousness bubble as well as the difference between oneness and duality is imaginary (and doesn't exist), then Oneness still applies. In that regard Oneness and nonduality would include seperateness and duality.

I know ultimately nothing = something but nonetheless pure absence does appear different than thingness/experience/the myriad of stuff we can see, feel, and hear etc Isn’t it simpler and easier for THIS to stay as blackness/no experience/zero? Why the charade of “separate” body-minds, living and dying, etc etc Is something better than nothing? What if there was just blackness and no experience ever? Would the truth of nonduality remain? Deep down I grasp the “answers” but recently I fell into a bit of a funk. That clarity has been clouded again.

There is no "real" awakening that is not hallucinated. Everything is hallucinatory. We just say it is hallucinated when the means are chemical. Holding awakening through psychedelics as lesser than an awakening through other means seems to me be extremely dualistic, since due to nonduality there should be no reason why chemical (material) means would be less valid than some meditation techniques, since matter is mind anyways.

The non-duality war I personally think its very healthy if there is a part on the forum where people actually truly can debate discuss it, but not mengled with the articles of certain paths. Because it can get them to think critically. (it requires however another set up in the forum). I do strongly disagree that all paths are as good as others. Of course, someone who is further sees that the 8 folded path, that purifies the desires is best among paths, because someone is thrown in himself. But what makes something like this, or such a claim toxic? Because there is certainly a point being made by Leo. Keep in mind the 8 folded path, we will come back on that in a min. So what is then so toxic? I will show you guys an example of what is toxic, what is a perfect example of trying to "debunk" something in an ill way (not to forget, debunking is healthy, I promote it). Here is an example shown that is actually thrown, and already explained in my comment what is so wrong about it. Dear xxxx, You miss again the point, xxxx. So I will again explain it to you. The dhammapada, is well studied by me, and its examples are good to share. I live up to those examples, secluded from unwholesome deeds, sense indulgence, concentrated on Awareness and I am awakened to my true duty in accordance with my True Self. However, you seem to miss the point again. Your aim should not be me, but the subject that is presented. If you find it misinformation, support this with decent evidence. Refer to what is pseudo-wisdom in what I shared here as teachings. If someone lives up to it, and shares examples that enlighten the way, then surely this is wise to do. For those who follow it up, and look into it, surely, this is wise to do as well. However, if you do not come up with decent arguments, surely any intelligent being reading this, will surely understand that what you say is hollow, your own misunderstanding that is situated in either your own passions or ignorance. And should read the Dhammapada yourself and put it into action. I do not see a single article coming from you, that actually challenges what I shared here as teachings. There for I conclude because of not taking a stand to actually debunk it with decent arguments, your post as being filled with ramblings and pseudo-wisdom, egotism and can be there for classified as foolish, per swaying people to agree on things that lack evidence and has therefor nothing to do with wisdom, being intelligent and being situated in the fruit of wholesomeness. If you disagree, and are not willing to put any evidence in what is wrong with what I am teaching here, and why it should be otherwise, and how it should be otherwise, then surely if you can't keep your mouth shut, sit still, putting your attention on yourself and being concentrated on Awareness, and instead just keep mumbling around here in this forum referring to me how I am situated in spiritual egotism, you clearly miss your aim, and are yourself trying to astray by your pseudo-wisdom. For you can also just not read what I write, put me on ignore, and leave it at rest. But you do not do this, you come to me, again and again. How can that be of a good intent? Surely you didn't miss that. ................................................................................................... (So for all haters of Leo (or anyone else that is hated) that do not have come yet with decent arguments and are not willing to present them, but are just attacking, this message above is for you as well). The same counts for all that have something to say about Leo... If you don't have decent arguments, then leave it be. You must be ready to give arguments when asked for them. However I do point out towards Leo, see, they throw at me as well, and I have seen very very nasty things being said towards Leo, without a decent argument, or not willing to later point things out more, clearly with decent arguments, (e.g youtube) and I have seen nasty things being thrown at me. So whats toxic? That which makes it toxic, is that people do not come with decent arguments, and when asked, still don't. I would definitely would like to see a place where people can criticize peoples work, but with decent arguments (I stand widely open to be debunked very hard, but one must be coming with arguments, that are verifiable, and if I ever write something, people can just say to me: Please let us debate this, I wanna put this to the test with decent arguments, and I shall never say, I am not interested to support my claims with decent arguments with a clear mark of refraining from sophism). Preventing this healthy critical thinking in a forum, surely will lead people to think, oh Leo is going to discern who is non dual and who is not, and this is however imposing a non-dual by not non-dual which is toxic if not supported by good, solid arguments. (I am willing to support this further if Leo wants this, I stand wide open to make myself useful here) I don't believe Leo meant that as his intention however. Remember the claim about the 8 folded path? I dare to speak out that the 8 folded path is the best among paths. And I am willing to put decent arguments on that. Nothing toxic about that. However, I do am afraid that many, just can't put up decent arguments that are refrained from sophism, to actually truly demonstrate why its wrong even if they would wish. Some examples from other works, is just not enough to debunk something, although a valid point can be made. I am not supporting psychedelics, but I am betting that Leo would not say to me: Motus, you are crazy, you didn't gave me solid reasons why not, you are toxic. I always come with arguments, and if not, one can always ask for them, and I give them. And I find this healthy, because in this way I can warn for his reputation, (its what a good wise friend would do)! Create an article about what truly is non-dual according to you, and stand open for an argument back, letting readers decide for themselves. Thats key. And I would suggest that the administrator can use this information for improvement into all directions. (useful information can come out). Saying: Those non-dual, will never debunk something or debate it and correct a wrong view. This is not true. An enlightened being, or someone with a great understanding or someone rooted in Dharma, is only here to debunk with powerful sublime arguments. Debunking is for example what you do as well Leo, its what you should do. Its refraining from such duty that is dual, being attached. I wonder how many people got debunked by Leo in a positive manner, and I well support many of the points he made. (And I maybe should give those more credit here). I would rather say, if someone makes a probable toxic claim, they should be able to start an article on a forum, and challenge this. IF they do not respond to that, not even when asked in private to join it, or do join, but keep being toxic, not using arguments, just sophism to persway people and make war, now that is a reason to ban. I don't see a reason to ban, because he said; take the path I took, your path is wrong Leo. Or, Leo is not the right teacher. Motus is a bad teacher, his teachings are rubbish. (taking this personally is of course based on a wrong view, there for asking for arguments, which if one is not willing to put, and keeps going on with sophism and per swaying, then you can state: Wrong intent, false speech, wrong act, wrong view, wrong place of attention and concentration) (= Reason to ban?) Why no banning straight away, what do I think? Because, such a claim can be supported by arguments and should at some point, and the reader should ask for them to kindly explain why, if the writer did come up with decent arguments that can be checked to be valid, by his own core with a clear mark of refraining from sophism, he should be reasonable. Well now, the one answering should put decent arguments, and refraining from sophism. Otherwise, yes, if one just claims widely, without arguments, just throwing and throwing, is indeed making toxic claims due to not willing to support this claim with decent arguments. Deciding what is a good argument, valid argument etc, yes, one must be more educated, and that is another problem I come across. Therefor if someone is trying to debunk me, I will be more critical at pointing out rather why its sophism, and why it should be avoided. And I will do this as well for Leo, or anyone, if I see sophism, for the sake of education. I would ask nicely, that those who get a decent argument thrown at them, learn from it. Get along, harmonize, learn. I would ask nicely, that those who do not have a decent argument or are not be willing to put one when asked, just shut your mouth, and sit with it. Go watch some video's of Leo, or read some of the teachings I posted here. I really would like to see a reply from Leo, how he looks at the points I make here, as he is the administrator. And really would like to hear your thoughts about this article. (Remember, again, don't attack me, for theres no me, or a Leo, just learn to focus on my points that I make and come with arguments that are in line with the subject presented). (I posted it in the same forum, for practical reasons)

The key that you are just necessarily missing until you've awakened beyond nonduality: reality isn't in a certain way. As in the actual structure of reality is constantly shuffling; there is no solid background reality. Impermanent; transient, but absolutely so... and that's the stillness. The singular frame of reality (all of them, though there really is no continuity) is gone as it appears, since the stillness of a phenomenon is simultaneous with its dissolution -- in a way this is how the illusion of time is so robust. At the highest levels of insight, it's beyond-beyond (infinitely fundamental/subtle) the usual insights that are bound by consciousness itself. You don't understand this insight in the usual sense, because the reality more fundamental than context and even consciousness is revealed. You don't know it, it's beyond knowing, because there is only that. It might seem like consciousness can't not be fundamental, or that when I say beyond (more fundamental than) consciousness, what I really mean is some kind of ultimate consciousness... No... I really do mean literally more fundamental than consciousness. Absolute being unbound by the trio/tripod of time-subject-object.

This looked like a great share opportunity ❤ "I’ve found it interesting to notice and get curious about the undercurrent of restlessness or dissatisfaction that shows up sometimes in my experience and I suspect in that of most other human beings as well. We may find that this is sometimes quite strong and overt, and at other times, it is a very subtle, barely detectible undercurrent—a slight tension in the bodymind that is perhaps almost always there to some subtle degree, even in moments of pleasure. It often manifests as the attempt to manipulate, control, change or understand experience. It might show up for some as an effort to identify as awareness and not as a bodymind, or as an effort to be mindful (to “be here now”) all the time. It might be the sense that something needs to happen, shift, clarify, drop away or be found. It might be a feeling that we can’t stand being here in this mind or this body or this situation. It emerges from a sense of separation—a sense of fundamental lack, of not being okay, of something missing or something frightening or threatening. Nisargadatta described consciousness as an itching rash that comes upon us. Consciousness seemingly divides up the indivisible wholeness and freezes formlessness into apparently separate forms, giving rise to the sense of being an encapsulated separate self and the inevitable feelings of dissatisfaction, lack and endless seeking that follow from that. Buddha called it suffering, the delusion of being a persisting, separate somebody, driven by fear and desire. Adi Da, a controversial America guru (about whom I have very mixed feelings), often posed the question, “What are you always doing?” He was pointing to what he called the self-contraction. And he said, "Your suffering is your own activity. It is something that you are doing moment to moment....You will continue to pursue every kind of means until you realize that all you are doing is pinching yourself. When you realize that, you just take your hand away. There is nothing complicated about it. But previous to that, it is an immensely complicated problem.” He also said, “The self is just like this clenched fist. Relax the fist and there is nothing inside... We are never at any moment in the dilemma we fear ourselves to be." We often think so-called spiritual awakening is about getting something or finding the Truth. But it’s more about seeing the false as false, seeing through unnecessary mental activities, noticing and relaxing that metaphorical clenched fist in the bodymind. And we can’t actually “do” relaxing—that would be a contradiction in terms. In the seeing (i.e., awaring) of the tension, there is a natural relaxing that happens by itself—the storylines begin to lose their believability and their grip loosens. The clenched fist opens. It isn’t a willful efforting—it’s a relaxing, a letting go, an opening, a surrendering. It happens spontaneously. And it rarely, if ever, happens once and for all. It’s always about right now. And sometimes, relaxing doesn’t happen. And then, it may be possible to notice that even the contraction or the tension is never really a problem—it is simply an impersonal energetic movement of this aliveness, a momentary dance that presence is doing. Taking it personally, giving it meaning, viewing it as “The Obstruction Standing Between Me and My Awakening” and then trying really hard to get rid of it, is all only a new meta form of the very problem it is trying to cure—a problem about the problem. This efforting to get rid of effort, or trying to stop trying, is a common unintended side effect of otherwise potentially helpful pointers and practices such as recognizing ourselves as boundless awareness or impersonal presence, or “being here now,” or even attending talks by someone like Tony Parsons in which we are told that there is nothing to do and no one to do it. All of these things, when slightly misunderstood, can inadvertently feed into the very problem they are designed to expose or undermine. The medicine that we need to cure a physical illness often has unintended but unavoidable side effects. For example, radiation treatments successfully and blessedly dissolved a cancerous tumor in this body that would have killed me, but it also caused some secondary collateral damage that continues to unfold (as they knew it would, and as I was told about in advance, and which was a price I was willing to pay). In a similar way, spiritual practices and pointers can also have unintended collateral side effects or potential pitfalls. They can inadvertently reinforce the sense that “this isn’t it,” that “something needs to happen,” that there is someone here who needs to do something to finally be okay or complete or happy or enlightened. They can reinforce a dualistic sense of success and failure, okay and not-okay, a striving for future results, an endless evaluating of how we are doing, comparing ourselves to others, and believing that the speaker at the front of the room or the author of the book has something the rest of us don’t. As with the radiation that cured my cancer, this doesn’t mean these pointers and practices are terrible and should not be used. It seems to be part of the journey from Here to Here that we inevitably stumble into various misunderstandings and their associated pitfalls (or unintended side effects), and then eventually (with luck), we wake up from them—or we don’t, and that, too, is simply how this dance is dancing. Often different teachings serve as antidotes to the unintended pitfalls of other teachings. Thus, in my own journey, Toni Packer helped to dissolve some of the pitfalls inadvertently induced by Zen; radical nonduality helped to dissolve some of the pitfalls inadvertently induced by Toni’s approach; various Buddhist teachers and more encounters with Toni helped to dissolve some of the pitfalls induced by radical nonduality; and so on and on. In one moment we need mindfulness meditation, in another moment we need Rupert Spira or Gangaji or Adyashanti, in another moment we need Karl Renz or Jim Newman or Peter Brown, and in another moment we need Robert Saltzman or Shiv Sengupta. It’s not about one being right and the other being wrong. It’s about pulling the most recent rug we’re standing on out from under us again and again and waking us up to THIS, right here, right now. The mind is infinitely skilled at turning rug-pulling and rug-less-ness into an imaginary new apparently solid rug upon which we can stand. Thus, waking up is not once-and-for-all, but always NOW. So, you may find it interesting to give open nonjudgmental attention to the persistent sense of restlessness or dissatisfaction—feeling it in the body, that subtle or not so subtle tension, agitation or unease, and also seeing the thoughts and storylines that generate and sustain this unease. Not trying to fix or undo it or get rid of it, because that’s just more of the same efforting, but simply being aware of the whole thing—not thinking of it as a problem, but SEEING it as the neutral and only-possible expression of reality at this moment. This can be an interesting exploration, and if it invites you, I suggest approaching it lightly, with curiosity and interest, not in a goal or result oriented way. Allow it to do you, rather than you trying to do it—which is actually always how it is. And remember, we are never really in the dilemma we imagine ourselves being in. The whole story of being lost, bound, incomplete, etc. is all imagination. There is no separate, independent, persisting person to be any particular way for more than a nanosecond. There is ONLY flow and nothing IN the flow. And paradoxically, the ever-changing flow never departs from the immovable instantaneous timeless immediacy of HERE-NOW." - Joan Tollifson

You're correct, nonduality is not the end of the awakening process -- though it does have finality since separate identity is seen-through irreversibly. When enlightenment happens there's no one else who is unawake, so it's hard to talk about this, but anyway... Examples of not just fully enlightened, but also those who have abided here in this way long enough to be effective as a teacher: Bernadette Roberts, Rob Burbea, Jed McKenna (pseudonym; likely born Peder Sweeney) Currently accessible: Angelo Dilullo MD (Simply Always Awake), Adyashanti And plenty of Zen teachers. And I don't know if Leo has been awake long enough and in such a way for him to effectively do one-on-one guidance for liberation -- I certainly can't yet. I think it probably takes like 10 years but that's basically just a slightly educated guess. That's just off the top of my head, not wanting to make a mistake somehow by listing more. There are certainly many more -- especially for nonduality, but enlightenment on the other hand is really uncommon in relation... So to speak... But again when enlightenment happens it's obvious that truly, no one is really unenlightened anyway. And your intuition is correct, that there are no enlightened "people." Any one who relates to another one is not the enlightened one, but an after-image of the underlying enlightened truth -- the clothes (ego-suit) that the unbound-by-ego enlightened one wears. Something that I imagine very easily gets mistaken for enlightenment, but is actually not even nondual recognition, is a sort of state that can be brought about with self inquiry, concentration + insight practice, even psychedelics sometimes... Many, including Adyashanti, call it Witnessing. Or "The Witness." Akilesh (Sifting to the Truth; perhaps enlightened but has definitely at the very least reached nonduality) calls it the spacious mind. Rob Burbea called it the vastness of awareness. It's kind of like you're God looking in at experience rather than out (though it's not really describable so definitely don't take that literally; it's kind of a figure-ground-reversal), and seeking and self and objects are replaced with pure consciousness without conceptual activity; pure subjectivity. This is an incredibly blissful state, but it's not nondualty, and certainly isn't enlightenment... though it's very easily going to be virtually synonymous with what's called initial kensho... and as long as you don't think you've personally attained enlightenment, you'll definitely at least realize that enlightenment is real (truth exists). When the consciousness and the world disappears (often, but not necessarily, after spending a lot of time in this Witnessing state), that's nonduality -- identity is seen through; self falls away in a sense. When the perceptual filters responsible for constructing a self, themselves (the filters/layers of contracted energetic illusion) fall away though, via an ongoing automatic curiosity-desire-inquiry... that is associated with enlightenment.

@Leo Gura Just as a small nitpick, what Angelo can talk about, directly on the scene, is utterly beyond nonduality. I recognize it essentially as what you might term something like absolute impersonal solipsism. If you don’t see that, you pretty much just haven’t seen enough of his stuff. It’s definitely not set apart from God either it just has no need to be called as such.

You need a radical alteration of your state of consciousness. Intention isn't good enough. Mediation isn't good enough. Self-inquiry isn't good enough. Only a change in state is enough. Through a radical shift in state of consciousness. Because your state runs everything and you are contemplating and intending from within a certain limited state which will never be good enough. You can't break out of your state through sober contemplation alone. Nor even mediation. No! I am telling you that all of that is child's games compared to God-realization. You do not understand what God is, nor do any of the teachers you've been following. They are not God-realized. You will not understand this until you realize what God is. It's way beyond nonduality or any Buddhist bullshit. There is no way for me to explain it to you. You just have to awaken deeper. I am talking about the fact that you are imagining every spiritual thing. You are even imagining nonduality and all those nondual teachers and teachings. You are even hallucinating right now that you've ever meditated. Your meditation itself is a just a dream. God-realization is not transcendence of the present. It is full, 1000% presence. But you don't have that now. What you have is some weak-sauce neo-advaita idea of presence and God. Nobody is teaching what I am teaching. It's not all the same. And there is no way I can prove that to you. But I have awoken to levels that nobody teaches or talks about. You will never reach it via meditation. Never. You can fully master Buddhism and you will still not reach it. I have reached complete omniscience. And it has nothing to do with suffering or liberation. And it's the only thing you will ever want if you ever reach it. How can I possibly claim and know such things? You will never understand until you reach what I have reached. It cannot be communicated. It requires infinite bandwidth to get it.

I'm trying to get you to consider that it isn't BS. Have you considered that during the time you tried all the workshops and classic meditation that you just didn't get far enough to actually start to really get it? To get there requires a really really deep digging into super subtle stuff. You need to get really freaking good at sensing your perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. This is super hard, but it can be done. The result is seeing reality as it really IS right now, which has nothing to do with a state and everything to do with what is actually true. I'm talking about NONDUALITY, and you're talking about transcendent states. To truly realize nonduality, radical no-self is foundational and has to be because it's the fundamental illusory split between subject and object. This is not "no-mind", but literally the collapse of all dualities and all identities, leading to absolute ineffable groundless paradox and non-description, and it only ever is this here eternally now. When you go chasing transcendence, you miss the whole boat because you miss that the deepest truth isn't a state or about any kind of content. This is the truth that brings peace and love and happiness. The very seeking that drives you to desire understanding with psychedelics IS separation from real understanding, from Being. I just see your mind constructing this frame in which there is this "high realization", a Leo that should embody it, and a noble drive for understanding. Break this construction and free fall backwards. Radically accept absolutely everything, even your own resistance and craving, and do this until it melts. Accept every dark emotion and thought. Accept the deep powerful NO that reverberates through your being when you try to let go. And keep going. It is so obvious you are not free, and I wish you would stop being stubborn here because it's just ego, and it misleads people who are using you as their primary resource.

That's maybe what they'd say, but I wasn't coming from there. ( In a sense, enlightenment is further than nonduality, because while nonduality reveals there's just energy and no identity (and the seeker was the sought), there's a further deepening that reveals how that energy is still sort of a reflection of what can be revealed when the leftover perceptual filters strip away -- call it whatever; it's the infinite and infinitely efficient, beyond understanding, more logical than logic... And the way I see it, this is what Leo describes as being conscious of how you're imagining the entire reality as God. ) I understand @Consilience and what he said totally resonates. Basically what I meant is, while yes the jhanas and meditation/mindfulness are certainly valuable if not indispensable on the path (I probably was being misleading by not including the fact that it couldn't be any other way), there is an orthogonal or "backwards step" (happened with self inquiry + spiritual autolysis but not until I had done it for quite some time) that I was somehow able to avoid even while exploring jhanas with pretty good technique and even with lots of bliss in every day life. And that backwards step can open up glimpses into what's really going on, which is so intimate that it can be constantly overlooked even in the midst of very advanced practice. Maybe it isn't generally that way for everyone's path -- I can see that. I did not mean for it to come across that those practices were useless -- they were in fact crucial. In the grand scheme, there probably wasn't a single month where I wasn't "further along" by the end of the month relative to the beginning, even though in a sense there was something missing. But at least for me (again my practice could've had a subtle flaw so to speak, and actually, in a sense, in fact it did) it was possible to get really good at concentration and even mindfulness... all the while not taking what I now see to be a key step that I was somehow missing up until the point it began: Directly attending to the thought space (rather than raw sensations, as I had intuitively assumed until then was the right way -- and in a sense it was right for the time) in a discerning way, for the purpose of investigating which (and how) thoughts/fixations pull me back into illusory view, thought, and doership. Yeah, I actually managed to avoid that for quite some time! I would add that, intuitively, I think culprits may have been that I: 1. mainly just focused on jhanas and metta... and 2. didn't consult with a teacher. My practice was sort of well rounded, but in relation to how much metta and concentration practice I did, I was only really dipping my toe in what I now recognize to be at least a few of the prime movers of practice: 1. noting, 2. inquiry, and 3. in a way, "beyond practice," a very strong desire to wake up + the constant intention to break out of filtered reality and applying that passion to investigating the thought space and seeing everything discernible as a thought / thought layer / fixation / filter that creates the sense that I'm here and I'm separate from everything... or in other words clarifying enlightenment: what it actually is; how it truly isn't just another state... There's no it and yet at the same time it's an indescribably total shift in relating to experience. The process of waking up is kind of like this: you're leaving enlightenment, then once totally out, you're instantly back in again, but for real this time... Only now, instead of a separate you looking through the senses, something else is looking... and movement is absolute stillness.

You are seriously confusing Turquoise and Spiral Dynamics with mysticism and nonduality. That's not how the model works.

You shouldn't even bring up nonduality because its not relevant to this discussion. When we are talking about laws we are talking about some kind of morality that we are agreeing on even though we know that it is subjective. we shouldn't have even started talking about this morality issue, if you are not willing to biting some bullets. Of course in the grand scheme of things there is no distinction between anything but at the end of the day, you would have a problem if someone murdered your family. So you want some laws around it. Laws are coming from ethics, and ethics deeply correlates with politics and we are going back to morality. Its not practical to continue this "discussion" or this "debate" because you are not willing to engage with the points i make, and you are not willing to answer some essential questions that are revolving around this morality issue. But I will try it one last time. When you saying that i am immoral because i would allow abortion because i am actually allowing murdering humans thats a very serious claim. You need to back that claim with justifications and not with these arbitrary lines like :The line still exists within the potential range. You need to justify how am i allowing murdering humans, and that requires making a definition for humans. Because right now you are only saying that yes there is this potential and when i am allowing abortion in the first week for example i might kill a human or i might kill a human life ,"i don't know exactly because i didn't draw the line" You can't get away with being that hardly untangible. Also still waiting for arguments why should anyone value potentiality over my valuesystem. How your moralsystem better than mine. Make arguments around that. "Taking the whole conversation to the line is pointless" It is essential especially for you, when you make claims , that i allow murdering humans. This is another arbitrary line that you are making about how you decide what has enough potential and what doesn't have enough potential. Being this arbitrary with your morality will cause a lot of problem, because if we are talking about a law system you cannot just be this untangible with your arguments, because thats not how morality or justice system works. This is not just a 1v1 debate, this is about making justifications and figuring out which moral system would be better in regards to abortions. So your argument basically boils down to this: "I value potentiality, but i can't exactly define what i mean by sufficient potentiality" Be very very exact about what do you mean when you are talking about "Sufficient potential" potential without putting words like "and a few other factors". Be willing to take a position, and this one time don't be abstract.

Three distinct awakenings I can remember: God realization, nondual recognition, liberation. Nondual recognition will always come before liberation, but other than that any of those can happen without the others -- though again liberation won't happen until after nondual recognition; liberation isn't a one and done thing like nonduality (collapse of identity), but the additional stripping away of the layers that hide the indescribable intimacy that's really going on.

There is no difference between doing the work and trolling, hense nonduality A true master is both awake and an epic troll, here is a koan for us all

The word “believe” seems to imply more than its use in the traditional sense. They could either mean that reality is what you make of it, literally.. or they could mean the straightforward notion that belief = reality. The meaning of the latter being actuality. And the former meaning being more psychological than actual in its essence. Personally, I'd say they meant the former.. Belief = Reality.. simply because of my insight on nonduality.

First I will define awakening/enlightenment, so you know what I am talking about (and opposed to more general uses of the words). Enlightenment is a sudden, non-conceptual, and visceral insight or revelation that dispels ignorance and shatters illusion regarding who/what you are and the nature of reality. The insight instantly shatters the illusion of “me” and the illusion of separation or duality. The "me" can never be believed again. This is the same as Self-realization or God-realization...for in Advaita / non-duality the realization includes "Aham Brahmasmi" or I am Brahman. Did you lose/increase your interest in certain areas? Spirituality has been a favorite topic since I got into it, but after awakening, the interest has solely been drawn to nonduality. Dualistic traditions with a path and somewhere are no longer interesting. That is because those paths all involve a "me" and bettering the "me" or a "me" trying to get something. There is no "me", so talking about the "me" is not much interest anymore. All other aspects of life seem to remain the same in terms of interest. How did it affect your work/life purpose if at all? Awakening shattered the idea of purpose. Life does not inherently have a purpose, we imagine purposes for things. So I no longer need a purpose and am perfectly content without a purpose. But life goes on as play (and play is something not done for a purpose but simply for its own sake). I play going to work, I play paying the bills, I play married life, etc, etc. This is an inward attitude really, so outwardly there was no change. For example, awakening did not affect work life. How did it affect your relationships with "others"? From the perspective of this body-mind, awakening had little to no effect on my relationships with others. However, my wife tells me that this is the easiest relationship she has ever had. I make no demands on others...I expect nothing...and I know all relationships will end one day and so I am non-attached. Other changes would be that I don't take part or add to drama, others can not control or manipulate me, etc. So others who want to "test our relationship" or otherwise control/manipulate would not be satisfied. That being said...none of my relationships with others really changed. For example, non-attachment is not apparent to others and so they don't know I am non-attached. The inner attitude changed, but outwardly there was no change. What challenges do you face knowing your true nature whilst living "in the dream"? There are no problems. Enlightenment/awakening happened in 2005, so it has been over 15 years. I do not recall any challenges I faced due to knowing my true nature while living "in the dream". Enlightenment/awakening does not impede or make it difficult to live in the world. I am not other than the dream...it is all Self/Brahman. The dream/life game may have challenges, but challenges are what makes playing games fun.

We can't create a loving society with nonduality. For that, compassion is required, which comes from applying love in a relative way. Nondual love is not healthy for human society. Here is why: Fighting torture is evil? Worshipping torture is love? To create a loving society we actually need to do the opposite. Fighting part of "what is" (all the suffering in the world). And worshipping "what is not" (a potential future full of love and happiness for all). It's interesting, the definitions of evil from a practical vs a nondual perspective are basically opposite. @gettoeflI'm not addressing you specifically. What you wrote is just the perfect representation of hardcore nonduality.

^^^ Definitely. @iboughtleosbooklist Jim, Tony, Kenneth, Andreas, Ariana, Tim, Richard, etc do in fact transmit nondual realization. However, not only is that not as far as enlightenment goes, but for most seekers, actually hearing the message by just consuming (let’s call a spade a spade) nonduality meetings is like winning the lottery... and even if that happens it is frankly a long, long way from enlightenment. Don’t pretend the ball isn’t in your court. Whatever you think nonduality (and enlightenment) is about, it’s not about that — it is utterly beyond anything conceivable. Probably the most common mis-hearing (understandably) of the nondual message is “there’s nothing to do and nowhere to go” which is simply not true. When nonduality is recognized, identity is over (it has finality to it, unlike basically any other awakenings) — the experiencer apart from reality stops happening. It’s not that choices don’t happen anymore, it’s that there’s no chooser (or material universe) separate from choices. Saying anything about this is still just a story though. But waking up goes so far beyond nonduality, even though nonduality has finality to it. Paradoxically. As soon as you authentically want to wake up... you don’t need to read or watch or listen to anything ever again — you’ll have everything you need right here. Perhaps find a real teacher — one that you resonate with — such as Adyashanti or Angelo Dillulo MD.

soon good words here: https://www.reddit.com/r/nonduality/comments/uei7t4/using_intellectual_understanding_to_bypass/

@Thought Art heh. to answer your question, being is more than consciousness. Well, that depends on how you definie consciousness actually. god is and always will be a name. This makes it less than consciousness. Vocabulary has implicit meaning, and the meaning of god is... welll.... "That which is greater" .... and nonduality just isn't that. I see god as less than.... the indescribabeably, because god cannot escape its implicit meaning. I do not believe in any god, including this pointer nonduality thinkers use to point to what has better pointers to point to it. Leo basically worships god by self actualizing, and that is perfectly good for him. I do not pretend to know his experience or Truth; I only comment on my own, and compare it to his teachings so that you might see something you might not have realized on your own. Truth... Truth is as unknowable as it knowable. take that as you will. on infinity... it was one video, I'm pretty sure he said or implied that there was no more to experience than all of everything. And how exactly is any conscious being going to know that? they can't. Infinity is unbounded, and Leo definitely bounded it with his words. I stopped following him because of it. I had already been on the fence, for the words he used to talk about.... whatever..... just kept getting more and more namelike, and less and less a guidepost. But, that is only my opinion, again, take as you will. as foryour last question, I already answered it. oh wait, there's a hidden question after that. Yes of course I'm greater than Leo, but that does not mean he is not greater than I. Greatness is incomparable, really. Leo will never have what I have, and never have what you have, and you will never have what your brother has, everyone is greater in their, idk, truth, or whatever. actuality. it's just incomparable and uncombineable. it is seperated by our limitation as the experiencer of the present moment. Truth.... it is already gone as soon as we have it, idk, that kind of points to the possibility that we will never get it. sure, Truth can be described as.... thisness.... but Truth, it is... well... infinite, and to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Unkowable existed beyond Truth, or if Truth existed beyond Unknowable, or maybe they are synonymous... lol I feel like I'm naming things, but my naming things is fundamental to.... who I am. Leo naming things (which, I only know that he has named god) just.... doesn't really fit what he pursues. calling it god is arrogance in my oppinion. god is unknowable, not actuality. like, I can see how one can say that like, godliness is actuality, but by definition we cannot look upon the face of god. Or at least one definition of it. We cannot speak its name. This does not make god.... well... anything. God is unknowable. That's like "undefined" in coding language, lol. Naming something god quite ironically is as arrogant as it is ignorant. Wait, those things aren't opposites, heh. As long as Leo names it god, the religious folk will feel objection to his words. I truly believe this is one word he should abandon, one pointer that fundamentaly fails to accomplish what Leo pursues by creating Actualized.org. lol I meant to make a quick reply, but it ended up meandering all over the place. Again, take it as you will, it is only meant to show you an alternate understanding of thisness. fundamentally, thisness is the same thing, for any of us, or is it? how can we tell the difference between the two?

Then I shall expand in the form of a Q and A. You are welcome to ask me any question from what I've stated thus far regarding the instrument and the process of creation. Yes. Nonduality does not mean the absence of form/appearance and diversity. Nonduality simply means that all is one.